Suchergebnisse

In recent years banks and other commercial lending institutions have faced a rapid increase in problem loans.' At the same time, the relatively new phenomenon in United States law known as "lender liability" has signaled an expansion of the legal theories under which courts may find lenders liable for damages incurred by borrowers. Perhaps most significantly, many courts now allow borrowers to recover against lenders based on various tort theories. Because of the broader remedies afforded under tort theories as compared to those remedies previously available in contract, some lenders recently have experienced large adverse verdicts. If courts continue to base findings of liability on new theories, lenders must choose between suffering a potentially severe economic loss by refusing to aid a financially troubled borrower or risking being made party to a lender liability suit by providing such help.' Conversely, any significant judicial curtailment of the theories under which borrowers may proceed against lenders undermines the effectiveness of these actions to ensure fair dealing and to prevent lenders from exploiting borrowers with respect to credit terms and conditions. This Special Project addresses the dilemma currently facing courts by examining critically the leading theories of lender liability and dis-cussing three potential solutions to various aspects of the problem. Initially, this Special Project surveys today's most prevalent theories of lender liability, as well as the impact that increasing liability has had on lenders. This Special Project then examines three potential solutions to the uncertainty currently plaguing the lender-borrower relationship.First, this Special Project explores the possibility of lenders using Uni-form Commercial Code sections 2-609 and 2-610 as a guide to conduct so as to avoid tort liability for breach of the implied covenant of good faith and fair dealing which some courts now find in loan agreements.Second, this Special Project analyzes several state legislatures' ...

This paper is a response to Jeff McMahan's 'Just Cause for War' (Ethics & International Affairs 19, 2005). McMahan holds, as many have, that there is a just cause for war against group X only if X have made themselves liable to military force by being responsible for some serious wrong. But he interprets this liability requirement in a very strict way. He insists (1) that one may use force against X for purpose Y only if they are responsible for a wrong specifically connected to Y; and (2) that one may use force against an individual member of X only if he himself shares in the responsibility for the wrong. This paper defends a more permissive, and more traditional, view of just war liability against McMahan's claims. Against McMahan's first claim it argues that certain 'conditional just causes,' such as disarming an aggressor, deterring future aggression, and preventing lesser humanitarian crimes, can be legitimate goals of war against X even if X have no specific liability connected to them. Against McMahan's second claim it argues that soldiers who have no responsibility for X's wrong may nonetheless be legitimately attacked because in becoming soldiers they freely surrendered their right not to be killed by enemy combatants in a war between their and another state, so killing them in such a war is not unjust. Though initially a criticism of McMahan, the paper makes positive proposals about conditional just causes and the moral justification for directing force at soldiers. Adapted from the source document.

This article deals with topical issues of employee liability for damage caused, the amount of damage compensation. Based on the analysis of scientific opinions of Russian scientists, the problems of establishing workers 'liability for damages in labor legislation are investigated; there is no common understanding of the institution of material liability, which causes difficulty in identifying the fact of liability in current practice.

Duties and that, in any profession exists to some extent by the guild system, and is determined partly by public opinion, including the professions, the medical profession, for one, is a certain moral teachings, that public morality different, and in general, higher and deeper it is, the medical profession, as one of the most important jobs in all communities has been popular, and even save the lives of patients who are known, so that a heavy responsibility towards the people and society, so that legislators, not just medical ethics, public safety and physical and mental health, individual rights, and restore order and social peace, the rules governing criminal responsibility of doctors, have predicted. Doctors, their actions, their criminal liability according to law, and if the violation or abuse of their jobs, are guaranteed. In this study, the fundamental principles of criminal responsibility, physicians are interested desired, so that, in addition to criminal liability, police liability, for whom it is intended. The former Penal Code, 1991, at the General Debate, which was referred to the medical procedures, the Penal Code, adopted in 2013, was repeated in the same way, the discussion of the term, the criminal responsibility of a physician, is recognized as the best in debate provided, and the furtherance of abortion, the physician's responsibility to have stabilized, as well as articles 495 onwards, civic responsibility and liability doctors perform screening may be causing damage to recognized that these issues in this study is investigated.